tribe

The Greek and Hebrew that is translated as “tribe” in English when referring to the “12 tribes of Israel” is translated in some East African languages, including Taita and Pökoot, with the equivalent of “clan” instead.

Aloo Mojola explains (in The Bible Translator 1989, p. 208ff. ) (click or tap here to see the rest of this insight):

“A number of Bible translation teams in East Africa have been baffled and intrigued by the use of the term ‘tribe’ in the English translations of the Bible. The usage employed in these translations does not reflect any of the popular meanings associated with the term ‘tribe’ in present-day English. Neither does it reflect popular conceptions of the meaning of this term in East Africa or in other parts of Africa and elsewhere. This raises the question: is the term tribe the best translation of the Hebrew terms shebeth and matteh or the Greek term phyle? What is a tribe anyway? Are the twelve tribes of Israel tribes in the sense this term is currently understood? How can this term be translated in East African languages?

“It is easy to see that there is no consistent definition of the term tribe which applies exclusively and consistently to the communities to which it is currently applied. Why, for example, are the Somali or the Baganda called a tribe, but not the Irish or the Italians? Why do the Yoruba or Hausa qualify, but not the Portuguese or the Russians? Why the Bakongo and the Oromo, but not the Germans or the Scots? Why the Eritreans, but not the French or Dutch-speaking Belgians? Why the Zulu or the Xhosa, but not the South African Boers (Afrikaners) or the South African English? The reason for the current prejudices, it would seem, has nothing to do with language, physical type, common territory, common cultural values, type of political and social organization or even population size. Ingrained prejudices and preconceived ideas about so-called “primitive” peoples have everything to do with it.

“The term ‘tribe’ is used to refer to a universal and world-wide phenomenon of ethnic identification which may draw on any of the following bases: identification in terms of one’s first or dominant language of communication (linguistic), in terms of one’s place of origin (regional), in terms of one’s presumed racial, biological or genetic type (racial), or in terms of one’s ideological or political commitments (ideological), and so on. Communities may choose one or more of these bases as criteria for membership. Any of these may change over time. Moreover forms of ethnic identification are dynamic or in a state of flux, changing in response to new environments and circumstances. Essentially forms of ethnic association reflect a people’s struggle for survival through adaptation to changing times. This is inextricably intertwined with the production and distribution of vital resources, goods and services as well as the distribution of power, class and status in society.

“At the base of any ethnic group is the nuclear family which expands to include the extended family. The extended family consists of more than two families related vertically and horizontally: parents and their offspring, cousins, uncles, aunts, nephews, and others, extending to more than two generations. A lineage is usually a larger group than an extended family. It includes a number of such families who trace descent through the male or female line to a common ancestor. A clan may be equivalent to or larger than a lineage. Where it is larger than a lineage, it brings together several lineages which may or may not know the precise nature of their relationships, but which nevertheless claim descent from a common ancestor. A clan is best thought of as a kind of sub-ethnic unit whose members have some unifying symbol such as totem, label, or myth. In most cases the clan is used to determine correct marriage lines, but this is not universally so. Above the clan is the ethnic group, usually referred to inconsistently as the tribe. Members of an ethnic group share feelings of belonging to a common group. The basis of ethnic identity is not always derived from a common descent, real or fictional; it may draw on any of the bases mentioned above.

“The Israelites identified themselves as one people sharing a common descent, a common religious and cultural heritage, a common language and history. There is no doubt that they constitute what would nowadays be called an ethnic group, or by some people a tribe. The twelve subunits of the Israelite ethnic group or tribe, (Hebrew shebeth or matteh, or Greek phyle) are clearly equivalent to clans. In fact this is what seems to make sense to most African Bible translators in the light of their understanding of these terms and the biblical account. Referring to a shebeth as a tribe or an ethnic group and to Israel as a collection of twelve tribes creates unnecessary confusion. Translating each of the terms shebeth, matteh, and phyle as clan seems to solve this problem and to be consistent with current usage in African languages.”

complete verse (Acts 13:47)

Following are a number of back-translations of Acts 13:47:

  • Uma: “Because here is the command of the Lord God to us (excl.). He said: ‘I have chosen you (sing.) to become the light that shines-on/enlightens the hearts people who are not Yahudi, so that You (sing.) announce salvation/goodness to people all over the world.’ ‘” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “For this is also the command of God to us (excl.), he said, ‘You are like lights which I have placed to shine on other nations/tribes, in order that this word/message will reach the whole world, that I am the one saving mankind.’ ‘” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “This is what the Lord causes us to do because there is a written word of his which say, ‘I made you lamps who can illuminate the people who aren’t Jews so that it might be spread to the ends of the earth my setting people free so that they are not punished.’ ‘” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “Because that is what God commanded us (excl.) saying, ‘I chose you (sing.) to illuminate the mind/thoughts of the Gentiles so that all people on this earth would have a way to be saved because of you (sing.).’ ‘” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “For this is what the Lord is having us (excl.) do, which is alluded to by this which is written which says, ‘I have set you (sing.) up to be like a light for the people who aren’t of the nation of Israel. For you will enlighten all people here under the heavens concerning the trail/way of salvation.”” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)

For the Old Testament quotes, see Isaiah 49:6.

pronoun for "God"

God transcends gender, but most languages are limited to grammatical gender expressed in pronouns. In the case of English, this is traditionally confined to “he” (or in the forms “his,” “him,” and “himself”), “she” (and “her,” “hers,” and “herself”), and “it” (and “its” and “itself”).

Modern Mandarin Chinese, however, offers another possibility. Here, the third-person singular pronoun is always pronounced the same (tā), but it is written differently according to its gender (他 is “he,” 她 is “she,” and 它/牠 is “it” and their respective derivative forms). In each of these characters, the first (or upper) part defines the gender (man, woman, or thing/animal), while the second element gives the clue to its pronunciation.

In 1930, after a full century with dozens of Chinese translations, Bible translator Wang Yuande (王元德) coined a new “godly” pronoun: 祂. Chinese readers immediately knew how to pronounce it: tā. But they also recognized that the first part of that character, signifying something spiritual, clarified that each person of the Trinity has no gender aside from being God.

While the most important Protestant and Catholic Chinese versions respectively have opted not to use 祂, some Bible translations do and it is widely used in hymnals and other Christian materials. Among the translations that use 祂 to refer to “God” were early versions of Lü Zhenzhong’s (呂振中) version (New Testament: 1946, complete Bible: 1970). R.P. Kramers (in The Bible Translator 1956, p. 152ff.) explains why later versions of Lü’s translation did not continue with this practice: “This new way of writing ‘He,’ however, has created a minor problem of its own: must this polite form be used whenever Jesus is referred to? Lü follows the rule that, wherever Jesus is referred to as a human being, the normal ta (他) is written; where he is referred to as divine, especially after the ascension, the reverential ta (祂) is used.”

In Kouya, Godié, Northern Grebo, Eastern Krahn, Western Krahn, and Guiberoua Béte, all languages of the Kru family in Western Africa, a different kind of systems of pronouns is used (click or tap here to read more):

In that system one kind of pronoun is used for humans (male and female alike) and one for natural elements, non-liquid masses, and some spiritual entities (one other is used for large animals and another one for miscellaneous items). While in these languages the pronoun for spiritual entities used to be employed when referring to God, this has changed into the use of the human pronoun.

Lynell Zogbo (in The Bible Translator 1989, p. 401ff) explains in the following way: “From informal discussions with young Christians especially, it would appear that, at least for some people, the experience and/or concepts of Christianity are affecting the choice of pronoun for God. Some people explain that God is no longer ‘far away,’ but is somehow tangible and personal. For these speakers God has shifted over into the human category.”

In Kouya, God (the Father) and Jesus are referred to with the human pronoun ɔ, whereas the Holy Spirit is referred to with a non-human pronoun. (Northern Grebo and Western Krahn make a similar distinction.)

Eddie Arthur, a former Kouya Bible translation consultant, says the following: “We tried to insist that this shouldn’t happen, but the Kouya team members were insistent that the human pronoun for the Spirit would not work.”

In Burmese, the pronoun ko taw (ကိုယ်တော်) is used either as 2nd person (you) or 3rd person (he, him, his) reference. “This term clearly has its root in the religious language in Burmese. No ordinary persons are addressed or known by this pronoun because it is reserved for Buddhist monks, famous religious teachers, and in the case of Christianity, the Trinity.” (Source: Gam Seng Shae in The Bible Translator 2002, p. 202ff.)

In Thai, the pronoun phra`ong (พระองค์) is used, a gender-neutral pronoun which must refer to a previously introduced royal or divine being. Similarly, in Northern Khmer, which is spoken in Thailand, “an honorific divine pronoun” is used for the pronoun referring to the persons of the Trinity (source: David Thomas in The Bible Translator 1993, p. 445). In Urak Lawoi’, another language spoken in Thailand, the translation often uses tuhat (ตูฮัด) — “God” — ”as a divine pronoun where Thai has phra’ong even though it’s actually a noun.” (Source for Thai and Urak Lawoi’: Stephen Pattemore)

The English “Contemporary Torah” addresses the question of God and gendered pronouns by mostly avoiding pronouns in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (unless God is referred to as “lord,” “father,” “king,” or “warrior”). It does that by either using passive constructs (“He gave us” vs. “we were given”), by using the adjective “divine” or by using “God” rather than a pronoun.

Some Protestant English Bibles use a referential capitalized spelling when referring to the persons of the Trinity with “He,” “His,” “Him,” or “Himself.” This includes for instance the New American Standard Bible, but most translations, especially those published in the 21st century, do not. Two other languages where this is also done (in most Bible translations) are the closely related Indonesian and Malay. In both languages this follows the language usage according to the Qur’an, which in turn predicts that usage (see Soesilo in The Bible Translator 1991, p. 442ff. and The Bible Translator 1997, p. 433ff. ).

See also this chapter in the World Atlas of Language Structures on different approaches to personal pronouns.

Translation: Chinese

在现代汉语中,第三人称单数代词的读音都是一样的(tā),但是写法并不一样,取决于性别以及是否有生命,即男性为“他”,女性为“她”,动物、植物和无生命事物为“它”(在香港和台湾的汉语使用,动物则为“牠”)。这些字的部首偏旁表明了性别(男人、女人、动物、无生命事物),而另一偏旁通常旁提示发音。

到1930年为止,基督教新教《圣经》经过整整一百年的翻译已经拥有了十几个译本,当时的一位圣经翻译者王元德新造了一个“神圣的”代词“祂”,偏旁“礻”表示神明。一般汉语读者会立即知道这字的发音是tā,而这个偏旁表示属灵的事物,因此他们明白这个字指出,三位一体的所有位格都没有性别之分,而单单是上帝。

然而,最重要的新教圣经译本(1919年的《和合本》)和天主教圣经译本(1968年的《思高圣经》)都没有采用“祂”;虽然如此,许多其他的圣经译本采用了这个字,另外还广泛出现在赞美诗和其他基督信仰的书刊中。(资料来源:Zetzsche)

《吕振中译本》的几个早期版本也使用“祂”来指称“上帝”;这个译本的《新约》于1946年译成,整部《圣经》于1970年完成。克拉默斯(Kramers)指出:“‘他’的这种新写法(即‘祂’)产生了一个小问题,就是在指称耶稣的时候,是否一律使用这个敬语代词?《吕振中译本》遵循的原则是,在称呼耶稣这个人的时候,用一般的‘他’,而在称呼耶稣神性的时候,特别是升天之后的耶稣,则用尊称‘祂’。”

Translator: Simon Wong

Translation commentary on Isaiah 49:6

He says introduces the actual speech of the LORD. Because of the intervening parenthesis in verse 5, this verse repeats the verb says. Good News Translation omitted the clause “the LORD says” in verse 5 but places it here where God actually begins to speak. This is an option for translators. Even if they keep both quote frames, they may prefer to render he says as “The LORD says [to me].”

It is too light a thing that you should be my servant … is a comparative expression in Hebrew that means “It is too small/light a matter that you should be only my servant….” The call to be a servant for the benefit of Israel is itself only a small task. The second half of the verse states that God has another task for his servant, a task that is greater. Bible en français courant renders this expression as “It is not sufficient that you are in my service….” New Jerusalem Bible is similar with “It is not enough for you to be my servant….” Good News Translation makes the reasoning here very clear by saying “I have a greater task for you, my servant. Not only….” The use of the conjunctions “Not only” and “but” help to bring out the overall sense.

To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved of Israel is the lesser part of the servant’s tasks. His first role is to reestablish (raise up) the people of Israel and bring back (restore) those who survived the exile. These two lines are very similar in meaning to the third and fourth lines of the previous verse (“to bring Jacob back to him [the LORD], and that Israel might be gathered to him”). The tribes of Jacob is a poetic parallel expression to Israel (compare the comments on 19.13). The preserved of Israel may be rendered “the Israelites who have survived” or simply “Israel’s survivors.” For these two lines Revised English Bible has “to restore the tribes of Jacob, to bring back the survivors of Israel” (similarly Bible en français courant). Good News Translation combines both lines into one, saying “[Not only] will you restore to greatness the people of Israel who have survived.”

I will give you as a light to the nations is the greater assignment that God now gives to his servant. It is the same mission he gave in 42.6 (see the comments there). God’s servant has a responsibility not only to Israel but to all nations.

That my salvation may reach to the end of the earth is the purpose of the servant’s global mission. The Hebrew noun rendered salvation in Second Isaiah usually means “rescue.” So this line could mean that no matter where God’s people were taken in exile (the end of the earth), from there they are to be brought back. Such a rescue effort under God would be a witness to those nations where Israelites had been held captive. However, most translations prefer the idea of salvation here. They suggest a second view, namely that the servant’s greater mission is to include bringing salvation to all non-Jewish peoples on the earth. This view says nothing about rescuing the Israelites, only that God will save all nations. Good News Translation expresses the second view with “so that all the world may be saved.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh is similar with “That My salvation may reach the ends of the earth,” and so is Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch with “so that all the people on earth may experience my saving help through you.” For the end of the earth, see the comments on 5.26 and 40.28, where the similar expression “the ends of the earth” occurs.

For the translation of this verse consider the following examples:

• He [or, The LORD] says:
“Being my servant to establish the people of Jacob,
and to bring back the survivors of Israel is merely a small matter.
Rather, I will make you a light to the nations,
so that those at the ends of the earth will be rescued.”

• The LORD says:
“It is not enough for you to be my servant
just to reestablish Israel,
to bring back the tribes of Jacob.
I will make you a light to all the nations,
so that my salvation reaches the ends of the earth.”

An example with indirect speech is:

• He says that to be his servant is a small matter
if it merely means reestablishing the people of Jacob
and bringing back Israel’s survivors.
Rather, he will make the servant a light for the nations
in order to rescue those at the end of the earth.

Quoted with permission from Ogden, Graham S. and Sterk, Jan. A Handbook on Isaiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2011. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .